Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object? (rethorical question)

Suppose a skinhead attacks an old lady with the aim of stealing her pension money. As he knocks her to the ground, a passing off-duty soldier rushes to her aid and, after a brief fight, knocks him out. Who would argue that it was the soldier who started the fight, because the old lady wasn't putting up any resistance? And - which is, in fact, the only relevant question - who was culpable for the starting of the fight?

Buchanan's argument is the despicable apologetics of a moral vacuum. He's suggesting that Germany and Japan should have been allowed to kill and steal to their hearts' content, and that anybody opposing them was the real villain. Nobody with a shred of moral sense takes him seriously for a moment.

Dave
 
First a summary (mainly based on Buchanan’s book, in italics, page numbers refer to it) of the events that lead to the breakout of WW1. Although it is true that the war itself was a result of a chain reaction after the assassination in Sarajewo, there were a lot of factors that additionally enabled he war.

p. xiii: Of all the empires of modernity, the British was the greatest – indeed, the greatest since Rome – encompassing a fourth of the Earth’s surface and people.

Lebensraum, any one? Britain, always keen to pull a Monty Phyton on Germany ('tomorrow ze wurld') already had ze wurld in 1914.

p.xviii:Why did Britain declare war on Germany, twice? As we shall see, neither the Kaiser nor Hitler sought to destroy Britain or her empire.

p. xix: there is another reason I have written this book. There has arisen among America’s elite a Churchill cult… This Churchill cult gave us our present calamity… it was Churchill who was the most bellicose champion of British entry into the European war of 1914 and the German-Polish war of 1939.

It must be said that president Barry Soetoro (or whatever his real name and place of birth may be, this kind of joke the US has become) has send the Churchill statue back to Britain and said that Britain was ‘just another country’. This means that Britain will become ever more isolated which is good news for the rest of Europe, now united with a euro waiting in the wings to overtake the dollar, so we can deal with this Trojan horse once and for all.

p.xvi – Was it truly necessary that 50 million die to bring Hitler down? For WW2 was the worst evil ever to befall Christians and Jews and may prove the mortal blow that brings down our common civilization. Was it ‘The Unnecessary War’?

The 19th century (after 1815) was a relative peacefull century where conservative governments ruled the European nations. The great destabilising event however was the unification of Germany in 1870. Germany did not look for expansion.
Britain in 1905 elevated it’s Anglo-Japanese treaty into a full alliance.
In 1904 Britain formed the entente cordiale with arch enemy France ending centuries of hostilities.

p.6 – Unknown to the Cabinet and Parliament, a tiny cabal had made a decision fateful for Britain, the empire, and the world. Under the guidance of Edward Grey, the foreign secretary from 1905 to 1916, British and French officers plotted Britain’s entry into a Franco-German war from the first shot.

P7. – Churchill never repudiated his own support of the entente or secret understandings… In August 1907, Britain entered into an Anglo-Russian convention, ending their 80 year conflict… The Great Game was over and the lineups completed for the Great European war. In the Triple Alliance were Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. Opposite was the Franco-Russian alliance backed by Great-Britain, which was allied to Japan. Only America among the great powers remained free of entangling alliances.
After the French defeat at Sedan and the abdication of Napoleon III a united Germany stretching from France to Russia and from the Baltic to the Alps had emerged as the first power in Europe.


Here is a map of the pre-WW1 situation (Poland, the ‘phoney’ official cause of WW2 does not even exist!).

Buchanan says that it was a major blunder of the German Kaiser not to prolongue it’s treaty with Russia in 1890. Russia had nowhere to turn to except France.

p.9 – The Kaiser’s folly in letting the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia lapse can hardly be overstated. While Germany was a ‘satiated power’… France and Russia were expansionist. Paris hungered for the Return of Alsace. Russia sought hegemony over Bulgaria, domination of the Turkish Straits to keep foreign war ships out of the Black Sea, and to pry away the Austrian share of a partitioned Poland.

To sum it up: Germany was the least motivated to start a war. Although my Anglo opponents here do not want to hear it, this cannot be said of the other participants of the war:
France: wanted Alsace back
Russia: wanted Bulgaria, dominance over the Bosporus and a piece of Poland
Britain: from it’s policy of ‘Splendid Isolation’ wanted to destroy Germany (more on this later)

p.10 – [The Kaiser] wanted only good relations with Britain… It was a British alliance for which [the Kaiser] strove all his professional life… Why did the Kaiser fail?... blame. But MacDonogh lays most of it on British statesmen and their haughty contempt of the Kaiser and Germany.

This same attitude can be observed from our Anglo friends here on the forum as well.
[To be continued]
 
Last edited:
Well, there's that, but generally, most of the violent anarchist movements of 19'th and early 20'th century are... surrealistic comedy gold.

In England for example you have some anarchist shooting a gun loaded with just a wad of paper at queen Victoria. (Still punishable by death.) Or another guy who jumps into her carriage with a loaded gun and... smacks her upside the head with it, apparently just managing to crumple her bonnet. It's stuff that you'd think "pull the other one" if it were in a novel, really.

Personally I blame it on lead water pipes :p

Some of the Tsarist Russia ones made them look like genius plans.
 
Suppose a skinhead attacks an old lady with the aim of stealing her pension money. As he knocks her to the ground, a passing off-duty soldier rushes to her aid and, after a brief fight, knocks him out. Who would argue that it was the soldier who started the fight, because the old lady wasn't putting up any resistance? And - which is, in fact, the only relevant question - who was culpable for the starting of the fight?

Buchanan's argument is the despicable apologetics of a moral vacuum. He's suggesting that Germany and Japan should have been allowed to kill and steal to their hearts' content, and that anybody opposing them was the real villain. Nobody with a shred of moral sense takes him seriously for a moment.

Dave

Dave Rogers, with his despicable BS, tries to equate the largest mass murderers in history, the USSR, to an innocent old lady.

Disgusting.

This of course is the weak spot of Anglosphere... in order to pimp themselves as the 'good guys of history' they have to remain silent about their alliance with the most despicable people in history, the Soviets. It was Anglosphere who effectively surrendered the entire Eastern Europe to these criminals.

Anglosphere in reality is the weak link of the 'white race', people without pride in themselves or their own culture, always willing to do the dirty work of the Jews (be it Germany or Iraq), who in reality have subjugated them. Most of the Anglo's are too stupid to understand this, they just consume the positive interpretation of their own actions as provided by the Jews, while sitting in front of the telly.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers, with his despicable BS, tries to equate the largest mass murderers in history, the USSR, to an innocent old lady.

Impressive. Do you - for some bizarre reason - believe that the UK declared war on Germany in response to a German attack on the USSR? If so, your knowledge of history is laughable. If not, your dishonesty is despicable. I'm not aware of a third option.

Dave
 
Perhaps 9/11 guy could find the mention of the Soviets in this little known speech.

"I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room at 10, Downing Street.

This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11.00 a.m. that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.

You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed. Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything different I could have done and that would have been more successful.

Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to have arranged a peaceful and honourable settlement between Germany and Poland, but Hitler would not have it.
He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland whatever happened; and although he now says he has put forward reasonable proposals which were rejected by the Poles, that is not a true statement.

The proposals were never shown to the Poles nor to us; and although they were announced in a German broadcast on Thursday night, Hitler did not wait to make comment on them, but ordered his troops to cross the Polish frontier.

His actions show convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.
We and France are today, in fulfilment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack on her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace. The situation in which no word given to Germany’s ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel themselves safe has become intolerable.

And now that we have resolved to finish it, I know that you will play your part with calmness and courage.

At such a moment as this the assurances of support that we have received from the Empire are a source of profound encouragement to us.

When I have finished speaking certain detailed announcements will be made on behalf of the Government. Give these your closest attention.

The Government have made plans under which it will be possible to carry on the work of the nation in the days of stress and strain that may be ahead. But these plans need your help.

You may be taking part in the fighting Services or as a volunteer in one of the branches of civil defence. If so you will report for duty in accordance with the instructions you have received.

You may be engaged in work essential to the prosecution of war for the maintenance of the life of the people – in factories, in transport, in public utility concerns or in the supply of other necessaries of life. If so, it is of vital importance that you should carry on with your jobs.

Now may God bless you all. May He defend the right. It is the evil things that we shall be fighting against – brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution – and against them I am certain that the right will prevail."
 
Mighty interesting all these opinions about the initiators of both world wars.
Now lets hear the analysis of a professional, Patrick Buchanan. From his latest book "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" this quote from page xvii:

And it was Britain that turned both European wars into world wars. Had Britain not declared war on Germany in 1914, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India would not have followed the Mother Country in. Nor would Britain’s ally Japan. Nor would Italy, which London lured in with secret bribes of territory from the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Nor would America have gone to war had Britain stayed out. Germany would have been victorious, perhaps in months. There would have been no Lenin, no Stalin, no Versailles, no Hitler, no holocaust.

There we have it, Buchanan does not accuse Britain of starting the war(s), he accuses Britain of turning European wars into world wars. Since the topic of this thread is 'who started both world wars?', the answer given by Buchanan is firmly: Britain.

Anybody who wants to object? (rethorical question)

Well, if you follow that sad excuse for logic...

If Serbia had agreed to those demands, the whole war wouldn't begin in the first place. Therefore Serbia started the war.
If Russia wasn't allied to Serbia, it wouldn't have intervened when Austria-Hungary invaded the latter, drawing in France and Britain alongside. Therefore Russia started the war.
If Germany wasn't allied to Austria-Hungary, the Entente would face a lone, crumbling empire, and there would never be a world war. Therefore Germany started the world war.
If France hadn't honored the alliance with Russia, there wouldn't be a world war either, therefore France started the world war.

I could go on, but anyone with at least one brain cell can figure it out.

McHrozni
 
Thanks for your response. What does Strachan have to say on the financial aspects of the lead up to the war.

I don't think he covers that in the one-volume version (it's not a big book by any means). Can't guarantee it, though, since they all tend to blur into one. I think he covers that in the first volume of the biggie, though...Call To Arms? However, the financial aspect really isn't considered a major cause of the war, mainly because those in power knew a large European war would be long and drawn out, and costly. Not good for business.

I've remembered a book that I have, Engdahl's 'A Century of War' which analyzes England's entry into the wars as a result of its geopolitical strategy to establish and maintain dominance of energy (oil) resources. I think that's probably correct, and I'll reread that section of the book. Also I have Griffin's 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' which analyzes the US entry as a result of the machinations of the English and US financiers who would have been in dire straights had Germany won. This too sounds right.

Not convinced. It's the sort of argument that seems to imply that the first world war was driven by business. Business played a part (how could it not), but to see it as the driver is to look at he wrong thing. After all, if the US businessmen (and others, British ones were as bad) were so concerned about a German victory then why were they so quick to screw the Russians sourcing arms?
 
It has nothing to do with the Jews per se...

It just that the Rothschilds who happen to be one of the worlds wealthiest families, are Jewish.

I dont think that means anything to them at his point but they do control the worlds money system of which the Japanese are a part of.

And the Yakuza control Japans government. They get paid by the Rothschilds.

The American(IBS) bankers control America, which are controlled by Rothschilds.

So it would be very easy to start a war especially when you control the media.
That would be Rupert Murdoch(Jew) who is friends with, you guessed it, the Rothschilds.

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.” Gutle Schnaper (Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s wife speaking on her deathbed in 1849)

It has nothing to do with being Jewish but more to do with money although they sure think they are the chosen ones when you listen to Israelis talk.

PEOPLE WHO RUN THE WORLD
http://www.iosworld.org/people_who_run_the_world.htm

lol
 
Impressive. Do you - for some bizarre reason - believe that the UK declared war on Germany in response to a German attack on the USSR? If so, your knowledge of history is laughable. If not, your dishonesty is despicable. I'm not aware of a third option.

Dave

Dave introduces 3 characters: a skinhead (English word for an initially English phenomenon), an innocent old lady and a brave soldier off-duty. I am trying to figure out the mapping here...

Brave soldier - Britain, right?
Skinhead - Germany, right?
Innocent old lady - must be Poland then right?

Not let me get this straight: 'innocent lady' (we will discuss the 'innocence' of the Poles later on) gets robbed on the street at the same time by 2 skinheads, one called Heinz and one called Iwan. Next a 'brave' off-duty soldier called Billy passes by, shouts from the other side of the street (without intervening, he is not as 'brave' as he thinks he is) 'do not do that!' and walks on. Small detail: he only shouts at Heinz, not at Iwan. A year or so later he gives skinhead Iwan weapons for free so he can rob a few more innocent ladies. In the meantime Billy boards in an areoplane and starts to bomb hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians into oblivion, always from great altitude. On the ground meanwhile the real work is done by Russians (80%) and Americans (15%). The English (5%) confine themselves to get a beating at El-Alamein and said bombing of civilians. Oh yes, and landing in Normandie when the show is almost over. It is clear to all that Billy never cared about the 'innocent old lady' but only aimed at Heinz (real reason: Heinz, who did appear on the scene only in 1870, got too powerful in the eyes of Billy and henced needed to be destroyed. That was the real motivation behind WW1, Versailles and WW2, Nuremberg --> holo-lie).

This is the moral universum the likes of Dave Rogers are keen to dwell in.

As I said, there is no end to Anglo perfidy.
 
Last edited:
Not convinced. It's the sort of argument that seems to imply that the first world war was driven by business. Business played a part (how could it not), but to see it as the driver is to look at he wrong thing. After all, if the US businessmen (and others, British ones were as bad) were so concerned about a German victory then why were they so quick to screw the Russians sourcing arms?

How can you be 'not convinced' before seeing the argument? Both Engdahl's and Griffin's books are absolute must reading to begin an escape from the fairy tale studies of history and econ that are the norm. I'll make the effort to outline Engdahl's argument and post it in a few days. While I think Engdahl's argument might be simpler, Griffin's might be more interesting because he analyzes the financing of wars in the 19th century, how Napoleon antagonized the bankers, then had to get a loan ... etc., etc., but it requires more historical context (which I don't know) to evaluate. Concerning the US businessmen ... Griffin goes into great detail describing the machinations of the bankers to get the US involved when late in the game it appeared that Germany might prevail, in particular the plotting around the Lusitania. Had Germany won the bankers would have lost everything as they had financed the war for Britain. I think this is a matter of record.
 
How can you be 'not convinced' before seeing the argument? Both Engdahl's and Griffin's books are absolute must reading to begin an escape from the fairy tale studies of history and econ that are the norm. I'll make the effort to outline Engdahl's argument and post it in a few days. While I think Engdahl's argument might be simpler, Griffin's might be more interesting because he analyzes the financing of wars in the 19th century, how Napoleon antagonized the bankers, then had to get a loan ... etc., etc., but it requires more historical context (which I don't know) to evaluate. Concerning the US businessmen ... Griffin goes into great detail describing the machinations of the bankers to get the US involved when late in the game it appeared that Germany might prevail, in particular the plotting around the Lusitania. Had Germany won the bankers would have lost everything as they had financed the war for Britain. I think this is a matter of record.

No mention of Jews, you're slipping Saggy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom